If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

that makes the assumption that the individual making the call knew where the person being called was at the time. i often make calls to cell phones not knowing where the person is other than they are out of the office (particularly when it's "after hours").

whether the call is answered is up to the person being called but if is answered disclosure of location and how to respond depending on location is up to the person receiving the call, not making the call. i have personally been on both ends of those kinds of calls and involved in each of the respective alternative scenarios.

i do not have enough information - despite what has been reported - to know for certain whether the responses in this case in both those areas were appropriate or not. i have also been the recipient of "distress calls" from individuals in differing circumstances and as a result i also know that what might after the fact to outsiders seem like options were really not options at the time for those involved.

An opposition MLA, who would only speak on the condition of anonymity, said he first heard mention of the bill in April 2014 when he received a call from Bhullar, now Minister of Human Services and co-chair of the leadership campaign for Calgary lawyer Jim Prentice.
"It was Minister Bhullar who called me and he wanted to give me information on Diana McQueen and Thomas Lukaszuk's cell bills," said the source, adding "that's not evidence or proof that he's the one who leaked it (to media)."
The MLA declined the alleged offer. A staff member for the MLA confirmed that the MLA told him the same story in April.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

This was not government business, it was private. This 'crisis' was not government business that had any bearing on service to the public. We vote them in to serve the public. Their private life is separate from their public life and what happens in their private life should not be subject to the public footing the bill. If Lukaszuk does not want to pay out of his own pocket or the other MLA in question get the P.C'. party to pay the bill, not the taxpayers.

This was not government business, it was private. This 'crisis' was not government business that had any bearing on service to the public. We vote them in to serve the public. Their private life is separate from their public life and what happens in their private life should not be subject to the public footing the bill. If Lukaszuk does not want to pay out of his own pocket or the other MLA in question get the P.C'. party to pay the bill, not the taxpayers.

How do you know it has no bearing on service to the public, unless you've seen the documents personally? I don't think this one can be judged without the facts and the with the publication ban in place.

An opposition MLA, who would only speak on the condition of anonymity, said he first heard mention of the bill in April 2014 when he received a call from Bhullar, now Minister of Human Services and co-chair of the leadership campaign for Calgary lawyer Jim Prentice.
"It was Minister Bhullar who called me and he wanted to give me information on Diana McQueen and Thomas Lukaszuk's cell bills," said the source, adding "that's not evidence or proof that he's the one who leaked it (to media)."
The MLA declined the alleged offer. A staff member for the MLA confirmed that the MLA told him the same story in April.

Thanks Paul.

Top_Dawg has a feeling that September 6 is going to be very interesting.

This was not government business, it was private. This 'crisis' was not government business that had any bearing on service to the public. We vote them in to serve the public. Their private life is separate from their public life and what happens in their private life should not be subject to the public footing the bill. If Lukaszuk does not want to pay out of his own pocket or the other MLA in question get the P.C'. party to pay the bill, not the taxpayers.

How do you know it has no bearing on service to the public, unless you've seen the documents personally? I don't think this one can be judged without the facts and the with the publication ban in place.

This was an internal matter between coworkers. It did not then, nor does it now, directly concern the ongoing operation of the government or the province in any meaningful matter. It's a private matter, hence the publication bans. If it's a private matter it's inappropriate to use public funds to deal with it.

Either pay back the money or air the dirty laundry in public by removing the publication ban. I'd much rather get the money, frankly.

sorry noodle, but even if it was just an internal matter between coworkers and even if it was ultimately more a private matter that didn't directly concern the ongoing operation of the government or the province, it certainly directly affected two members of the government. but even then i think that still misses the point...

there is more than one thing going on here. the first is travelling - either on personal or government/corporate business - without an appropriate voice/data plan.

the second is dealing with circumstances - either personal or government/corporate - that change whether or not the plan you left with is appropriate or not. if you are on a personal holiday for a week, you are not likely to be getting good value out of purchasing the same voice/data plan as if you are going to be away for week "on business" and expected to continue to do business.

the third is responding to things where you have a choice and those where you do not. if you get a business call - intentionally or not - you can say "i'm on holidays, i'll call you when i get back or if you need something more immediate please contact so and so". if you get a "distress call" that is not always an option. and if you have ever had to make one of those or take one of those you might have a better appreciation of that and know that those aren't always "single calls" - they involve follow-up and follow-through that can't always be passed off.

do i know whether that was what took place here? nope. but you don't know whether it wasn't either.

what i do know is that if i have to make one of those calls, it's probably not going to be someone whom i know will base their response on what it might cost. and if i get one of those calls i would hope i wouldn't refuse it on the basis that it might be too expensive.

i would hope i would open my home to someone in distress or take someone in distress to the hospital without worrying about the cost of cleaning up the carpet after. i'm not sure the cost of a telephone call or even a series of calls is any different. and if there was a substantial cost afterwards as a result of having to clean the carpets, i would pursue that no differently than the cost of the calls first with the provider (which was done), then with my employer if it was a coworker (which is where this one now stands) and then with the government through victims services or the good samaritan legislation or whatever (which in this case is the same as pursing the employer as it's the same purse). why should the end results be any different simply because of who was involved?

and don't forget that in most cases like this - at least from the limited information we have available - the cost to the system (or the government which is the same thing) when no action or support is provided at the earliest possible point it's needed and can be delivered is almost invariably higher than the cost of the consequences when that assistance is not provided.

i'm not trying to defend anyone or anything here per se but this isn't just a matter of hiding the dirty laundry or airing it in public.

...if you have ever had to make one of those or take one of those you might have a better appreciation of that and know that those aren't always "single calls" - they involve follow-up and follow-through that can't always be passed off.

Way to assume I've never faced these sorts of situations in my life.

I get that he left without a data plan. Happens to lots of people. I get that circumstances change while on vacation. I know that personally, because my Grandpa died as my family (including my father, the functional head of the family) landed for a Xmas vacation in Florida. The Magic Kingdom wasn't the happiest place on Earth for me that year.

I get that when a friend or colleague is in crisis that you want to help them, no matter the cost. I've lost a job & my place to live helping a friend kick a 4-digit-a-week heroin habit because I was the one person she felt comfortable around while detoxing. Not once did I ever consider the effects to my own life, as any loss to me was worth the salvation of my friend. So I know about helping friends via self-sacrifice.

But the decision to stick the bill on the taxpayer wasn't made on the spur of the moment. It wasn't made in an instant. It was a calculated, planned occurence months after the fact.

We don't have a Good Samaritan law in Alberta. We have the Emergency Medical Aid Act. Given that this brouhaha is all about a restraining order against an elected public official, I don't see how that's even remotely relevant in this case. Skyping with Poland to organize damage control over a colleagues political reputation & the fallout from having a restraining order placed on them is not "rendering the medical services or first aid
assistance". Reputation triage is not triage. Bleeding supporters is not the same as bleeding blood.

Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

...if you have ever had to make one of those or take one of those you might have a better appreciation of that and know that those aren't always "single calls" - they involve follow-up and follow-through that can't always be passed off.

Way to assume I've never faced these sorts of situations in my life.

I get that he left without a data plan. Happens to lots of people. I get that circumstances change while on vacation. I know that personally, because my Grandpa died as my family (including my father, the functional head of the family) landed for a Xmas vacation in Florida. The Magic Kingdom wasn't the happiest place on Earth for me that year.

I get that when a friend or colleague is in crisis that you want to help them, no matter the cost. I've lost a job & my place to live helping a friend kick a 4-digit-a-week heroin habit because I was the one person she felt comfortable around while detoxing. Not once did I ever consider the effects to my own life, as any loss to me was worth the salvation of my friend. So I know about helping friends via self-sacrifice.

But the decision to stick the bill on the taxpayer wasn't made on the spur of the moment. It wasn't made in an instant. It was a calculated, planned occurence months after the fact.

We don't have a Good Samaritan law in Alberta. We have the Emergency Medical Aid Act. Given that this brouhaha is all about a restraining order against an elected public official, I don't see how that's even remotely relevant in this case. Skyping with Poland to organize damage control over a colleagues political reputation & the fallout from having a restraining order placed on them is not "rendering the medical services or first aid
assistance". Reputation triage is not triage. Bleeding supporters is not the same as bleeding blood.

sorry - you're right that i was overly presumptuous in my reply but i was intending it to be a response to your post and the assumptions in it, not you personally. i hope you can accept the apology.

Tom has changed his story so many times on this in the last 24 hours. His problem that he implies things and expects people to take them as facts. He implied that he was told he had to look after this matter while it was happening. Then he said he did not call the premiers office until after the documents were sent and council was retained. Could he not have told the MLA in question to call the Justice Minister?.
This was a private matter that had absolutely nothing to do with the everyday running of the province. The taxpayer is not there to fund calls that are of a private nature. It's not government business, this MLA was in a dispute with a family member not someone from the public. It's not political, it's private.

^And I very much doubt the party wants to get stuck with this bill.
Meanwhile Hancock and Co are trying to divert this into a 'who let the dogs out' situation. Trying to make it seem the leak is worse than the $20,000. Then you get the rest of the rabble that thinks it's all Telus's fault. Poor Tom, a victim of the big bad telecom age. Go figure.

^And I very much doubt the party wants to get stuck with this bill.
Meanwhile Hancock and Co are trying to divert this into a 'who let the dogs out' situation. Trying to make it seem the leak is worse than the $20,000. Then you get the rest of the rabble that thinks it's all Telus's fault. Poor Tom, a victim of the big bad telecom age. Go figure.

Uh...well, given the allegation that a cabinet minister is approaching opposition party members and the media to tell them where they can find dirt on fellow cabinet ministers, purely for personal gain - then yeah, the leak is worse than a scant twenny G.

^Well, Bhullar has been implied as the 'leak' but he's doing the old P.C's trick of deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, slander, retain council, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny - oh by the way, it was me after all routine. (Ferris) Bhullar should take a day off because if he is going to act like Tom he'll dig himself a big enough hole for a mine shaft. Let the lot of them self-implode.

I wasn't bothered so much about the whodunit. It was whopaidit that was the problem.
Any who, a blimp at the bottom of the article. Lukaszuk is contemplating another leadership run for the PC's.
The guy is a sucker for punishment.